??? - view external link
Printable View
??? - view external link
This has been out for several days, and widely discussed, but it strikes me that there's much to be read into what ISN'T said, rather tha what is. Hands are thrown up in horror about Lapping, while there is talk of "any" other investment, rather than the specific (?) one from this billionaire Quite simply, the Trust are being used. They are now underlining all that the current Board are saying. They are being repaid with new status. Paid for propaganda?
Righ now I don't trust the Board
I don't trust the Trust
I don't know whether to trust Lapping;
Who's left to believe in?
The fans' representative on the board.
The Trust have always been used Griff, it isn't that much different. Trouble with all of this, meetings with Nixon and stuff, is that he is quite convincing. Easy to believe, because you actually find yourself wanting to believe him, and he looks like a nice bumbling old chap struggling against the world of 21st century sport.
I won't trust any fans' representative until I know who it is and can determine who they're actually workng for, That way I can maybe get a handle on who they're actually representing. There's currently too many people working for themselves, something everyone associated with the Club needs to move away from.
And while I'm at it, what's all this about the Trust already calling themselves CUOSC? Maybe they can, but aren't I right in thinking that they're putting the-change to their membership on Sunday? There's a democratic process to be gone through. At best their action is presumptuous. At worst it's disrespectful. Is no-one advising them on stuff like this?
Amateur.
Yeah, I mentioned that. I was told that they are allowed to change their, it now needs to go before the AGM for approval. What happens if the members say no? I don't know.
The Trust is, and always has been an absolute farce. The people running it are self serving clowns who just like to be noticed. The idea of it changing just because of a different and more members (but they're not members until 1st September, well after the meeting you'll note) is ridiculous.
It is definitely going to be more of the same.
There is going to be a list of nominations vetted by the club, and then they'll put it up for a vote. So you can safely assume there will be nobody capable of forming an opinion in among the candidates, and it will also be safe to assume that he/she will be working for Nixon.Quote:
Originally Posted by griff
My favourite trust moment was when they passed a motion with an overall majority of 49% (of votes cast in a yes or no choice). And people are naive enough to think they're interested in representing the majority view as a democratic organisation.
Couple of points here, it doesn't matter what you call it - it will still be the trust. The protagonists, egos and ultimate agenda are still the same. I'm agreed however, with the continued irony of them changing their without consulting their members - despite it being entirely irrelevant to the price of chips.
Next off, I'm a bit confused as to all this about the trust suddenly having a "new" seat on the board of Knighton Holdings? I thought the trust already had a seat on the board (for the last ten years in fact) and had proven entirely ineffective in adding any value or communicating anything to its members or wider supporters base? Rowley, Steel and Steel have all lauded it about in the directors box for a decade to what end?
I'd
I asked about the seat on the board, they have had one on the board of the Football Club, but not the Holding Company. Makes no difference anyway, the controlling interest is held by the dinosaurs.
The brown nosing happy clapper, as you so rightly describe him/her will be on the Football Club board, appointed for a year and thoroughly vetted. Yes, you're right important decisions will be taken at Holding Company level by the gruesome twosome, with the trust representative fawning in the background.
So we have a football club board, a knighton holdings board and an operational board.
Which board is responsible for what?
Do each of the boards have to have their decisions ratified by the other boards?
Which board is ultimately accountable?
How many people are on both boards and what is the implication of this?
What a mess.
We need one board that makes effective decisions not three. If you add the trust board - that's four.
We have one genuine right-back at the club yet we have four boards of directors. Shambles.